TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
31.01.2008
Authorization to Use Force

I thought the debate had been pretty even--maybe a slight advantage to Obama on immigration--prior to the Iraq discussion. But Hillary had to do much too much explaining about her vote to authorize the war--and in a way she really hadn't had to throughout the entire run of debates prior to this one. It wasn't a disaster, but at times it felt like she was on the verge of drowning. Too much lingo, too much jargon, too much rationalizing. Is this the moment when her refusal to call her vote a mistake finally comes back to haunt her?

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:41 PM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

huntlib said:

It probably wasn't a disaster if you're a pro-war Democrat, or once was. But she sounded like a hawk. She really defended the idea of kicking Saddam's butt. It's just too bad, she said, that it was Bush who was president.

For a lot of Democrats, this is a sensible position. But it's also a pro-war position, and it's a pro-war position that she is clearly somewhat embarrassed by. At times, it sounds as if she wants to deny or contradict the position itself.  At the very least, it sounded like she was going into contortions to try to explain herself.  

January 31, 2008 9:54 PM

LDuncan said:

The answer to Noam's question is "yes."  Her refusal to apologize finally bit her.  And I had a terrible flashback during what seemed like her interminable rationalization for her vote:  the visage of John Kerry filled up my living room.  We cannot afford to nominate her.

January 31, 2008 10:16 PM

ralphnelle said:

MSNBC's coverage is pushing Noam's angle pretty hard thus far. I think it's right. If Obama ends up winning this nomination, it'll be because he's a master of timing. What a moment to reintroduce Iraq into the national discussion.

January 31, 2008 10:17 PM

timcrim said:

Why doesn't anyone on TV recognize that Hillary was flat-out lying?

Obama could have had the line of the night if he said:

"With all due respect, Sen. Clinton knew she was voting for war, and to suggest otherwise is just not true."

January 31, 2008 10:20 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Yeah. the debate went as follows:

1. Hillary gave her usual good performance. But she was actually more likable tonight than usual.

HOWEVER

2. Obama (who is usually a disaster...a pedantic professor at these debates) actually outperformed Hillary for the first time since Philly.

3. You guys make a great point. The Feb 5th voters haven't paid attention. To them, Iraq might as well have happened yesterday. This was a great debate. And don't forget...the Iraq portion happened at like 6:30pm Pacific time!!!

January 31, 2008 10:42 PM

kerouac9 said:

Her Iraq response was terrible.  I know that Wolf asked her if she was naive voting for force, and she denied it, but didn't she essentially say that she voted for force thinking that Bush wouldn't actually use it?  Isn't that rewriting history in the worst possible way?  

The more Iraq comes up, the worse life gets for Hillary.  She can't possibly continue to outline the "defense" that she put out there tonight.  It doesn't make sense on the most basic of levels.

January 31, 2008 11:02 PM

ChanRobt said:

The woman either has to say she still supports the war.  Or, she was wrong to support the war, made a misjudgement, and is sorry for her mistake.

Of course, the real truth, everyone knows and she'll never say.  Hillary voted for the war because she thought that politically the right thing for her future presidential candidacy.

On the most important issue put before her, she acted like a true Clinton.  She did not vote for what she believed or what was right for the country.  She simply made a political calculation that proved to be the wrong political calculation for a Democrat.

I happen to believe the war was correct, but can respect someone who honestly believes the opposite and votes accordingly.

If Hillary's actions and subsequent lies on this issue of profound import is not disqualifying, than what else possibly could be?

February 1, 2008 2:46 AM

psantillana said:

Here's what I wish someone would have mentioned - her failure to read the NIE before voting on that war. And she had the nerve to say she exercised "due diligence". And what about when she said, on the tee vee, that Al Quaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein? What the bleeding hell?

February 1, 2008 5:43 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

LDuncun - you had a vision of Kerry, I had a vision of Gore saying "on the other hand.." twelve times in one sentence.

I wanted to cry.

February 1, 2008 7:05 AM

teplukhin2you said:

What Chan said. Many of us pro-war Dems supported the war in part because of the clear and unequivocal support of the man who bombed the sh*t out of Saddam's Baghdad five years prior, specifically citing the WMD threat in a televised national address. Billary supported the war. They should have the simple decency to admit this, say that our intel (like everyone else's) was wrong, that we should have given Blix more time to make his (in hindsight, correct) case.

It's just shameful that she and her husband are trying to pretend otherwise. These lies turned me against Billary, and the Obama = Jesse smear closed the deal.

February 1, 2008 5:04 PM