MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Hillary Clinton's "I'm Sorry" Problem Gets Worse

« White House Backs Down on U.S. Attorney Nomination | Blog Index | A Detainee's Story: NYT and MoJo »

Hillary Clinton's "I'm Sorry" Problem Gets Worse

Last week I had a long post about Hillary Clinton's "I'm Sorry" problem, i.e. the fact that she refuses to say "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong" about her vote for the Iraq War in 2002. Even though voters on the campaign trail are making it clear that she needs to say these simple words in order to get their vote, Hillary has insisted that the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and he should be the one to offer any apologies. It's an untenable position in a primary race filled with voters from the angry anti-war left (which includes me and just about every other liberal I know).

In an article from the New York Times entitled "Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on '02 Vote," we find that Clinton has... pretty much stayed the same. Here's the Times:

...yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

So Clinton is sticking to her guns. She told an audience in New Hampshire that "If 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." She is referring to Obama in the first and Edwards in the second.

This makes me think that the stance isn't just a political calculation but instead a deeply held belief that she will not let become a matter of political convenience. But then you read these paragraphs from Times, and it all just feels like stupid campaign politics.

"She is in a box now on her Iraq vote, but she doesn’t want to be in a different, even worse box — the vacillating, flip-flopping Democratic candidate that went to defeat in 2000 and '04," said one adviser to Mrs. Clinton.

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton believes that reversing course on her vote would invite the charge of flip-flopping that damaged Mr. Kerry or provoke the kind of accusations of political expediency that hung over Al Gore in 2000 and her and her husband, President Bill Clinton, in the 1990s, several advisers said. She has argued to associates in private discussions that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lost, in part, because they could not convince enough Americans that they were resolute on national security, the associates said.

So it's a matter of image and avoiding the flip-flop label. First of all, I can't imagine that a single flip-flop on this issue will be more damaging than Clinton refusing to apologize for an increasingly catastrophic war at every campaign stop over the next year plus. Second, I'm willing to tolerate campaign trail politics on a lot of different issues, but the Iraq War evokes a deep, visceral response from me: I want it addressed plainly and genuinely, without guile. I don't want it trivialized by political calculations. I think voters on the trail want the same. See my last post on this issue, wherein a voter asked Clinton a question begging -- literally begging! -- for a straightforward but deeply felt response.

What does she actually believe? What is masked by all the political considerations? I don't feel like I know, which is murder for her candidacy.

But as long as we're playing the horse race game.... Hillary Clinton simply will not be able to stick to her guns on this in the long run (because of clear and almost fatal damage to her campaign hopes as months go by) and in the end will be forced to apologize -- making it look like she caved. She should apologize now when she still has some control over the circumstances and coverage of the thing.

Comments

David Brooks, of all people, wrote a column declaring that Clinton has nothing to apologize for and no inconistency to clear up. The column is available for subscribers only, but here are some excerpts: http://thedeesdiversion.blogspot.com/2007/02/someone-needs-to-pick-me-up-off-floor.html

Posted by: Diane on 02/18/07 at 10:59 AM

One character trait that distinguishes an individual from the political chatter of the day is the ability to stand as a leader, out on a limb, long before others find it fashionable or long before your self interests dictate so. It is not that Hillary Clinton will not say she is sorry today. It is the fact that she did not distinguish herself as steadfast against the Bush-Cheney Neocon White House Iraq war long ago. It is not a question of days, weeks or even months but years past. And the same can be said of the majority of Congress & Senate.

The Media & Congress have glossed over the real disgust citizens have with all their elected officials. The November mid term vote was the most visible dislay of that populist anger. I suspect it will not be the last. I also suspect that many Americans want truth and justice. And they want the troops home. They want the end of the lie. As long as the troops are in Iraq, the LIE continues. Iraq means lie.

Thus, from the President & Vice President to all the members of Congress & the Senate that voted for the war: they lied. The bond of trust was broken. Every day since, Americans have to live with that broken trust every day.

Ever lie or cheat on your spouse? Your spouse would be angry. I would argue that is how hurt the American people feel. Except people are dying. Lots of Americans and an infinite lot more Iraqis. Millions displaced.

Their is a great discomfort with that knowledge. Their is some guilt too. And their is the quiet disgust with the President, & Vice President and even with the elected officials (moreso with the republicans)that it was over OIL, and profits. Record 2006 Exxon profits are proof.The nail in the coffin for so many soldiers & Iraqi lives.

That is why "sorry" is quite empty & meaningless.

Better for Clinton to act like a leader in the present & future, i.e. Iran. Keep us out of Iran. Whether you win or loose the nomination, ACT like a leader and not as a follower.

And that goes for the rest of you. History will not be kind.

Posted by: Paul Malouf on 02/18/07 at 11:03 AM

Another thought comes to mind.

Back in 1998 President Clinton got that infamous PNAC letter to attack Iraq. President Clinton told the Neocons to go fly a kite.

So their is a unsconcious gut feeling that Hillary Clinton, as former First Lady, should have known that the neocons were up to something, and exposed the fallacy in the Bush/Cheney White House propoganda operations on the American public of linking AlQaeda & Saddam.

Many ordinary Americans knew the dangers. Many americans sounded the alarm. PM Chretien & the Canadians refused to go to Iraq.

In retrospect, she dashed our "hope".

And that's why her team should fear Obama.

Posted by: Paul Malouf on 02/18/07 at 11:51 AM

Hillary is not opposed to the war in Iraq. The reason is political. Hillary represents New York and most New Yorkers still believe Iraq had something to do with the 9/11/2001 attack. You still here the false genocide accusations about Iraq. Hillary finds it more expedient to support the war than to educate her constituents.

Chalmers Johnson was just on C-Span touting the third book in the Sorrows of Empire trilogy. A caller asked about a democrat being elected in 2008. Would it end the war in Iraq. Johnson said no, it would not make any difference.

Johnson said nothing was more disheartening than imagining a continuation of the Clinton-Bush dynasties. Eight years of Hillary followed by eight years of Jeb Bush. That would surely be the end of the sweet land of liberty. If the nominee is Hillary that is 100% correct. She will continue the Military Industrial Complex's war policy

Posted by: Clifton McCarthy on 02/18/07 at 3:57 PM

Unlike Edwards, Hil can't plausibly claim that she was duped by Bush. Through her husband, she had as much access to the intelligence as anyone. Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, so she would have to renounce that well to be consistently anti-war. She is tied to the war and her only hope it that the surge works and the situation in Iraq improves before the next election.

Posted by: Peter Kauffner on 02/18/07 at 9:49 PM

Not saying "sorry" and admitting to a mistake is a character flaw. It takes a big person to admit to a mistake. Perhaps she does not have the character to be president. Vote Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Ben on 02/19/07 at 8:44 AM

Somehow, I agree with both Peter K. and Ben.

Posted by: Tom on 02/19/07 at 9:20 AM

somehow...i think ben is the one who made a mistake, has a charachter flaw and should be a big enough person to admit his mistake. also, he aint smart enough to be presidemt. [expletive deleted - outrageous spelling errors preserved] ralph nader.

Posted by: Tim Howe on 02/21/07 at 11:54 AM