Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Stance Riling Critics on the Jewish Left

[Thom Little]

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is coming under fire from Jewish anti-war activists who say that her centrist position on Iraq could cost her the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

In the latest sign of the growing discontent among left-wing activists, Jonathan Tasini, a product of the Labor Zionist movement, launched a bid to unseat Clinton in New York's Democratic senatorial primary next year. Tasini, who has been endorsed by the country's most prominent anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, says his main reason for running is to criticize Clinton's support of the war.

No serious political prognosticator believes that Tasini will be able to parlay the increasing anti-war sentiment among Democratic voters into a victory over Clinton. Some observers say, however, that the rising anger over the war could trip up Clinton in the presidential primaries, if she chooses to run for the White House — which is why, they say, she wrote a 1,600-word letter explaining her war stance, sending it electronically to supporters November 29.

"Clearly her stance is causing her problems," said Douglas Muzzio, a political scientist at Baruch College. "That's the meaning of the 1,600-word missive to her supporters. Can the left mobilize enough to damage her? In the short run, no. In the long run, it depends on what happens on the ground. If it turns out to be a quagmire, her current and past stances put her in a hard spot."


http://www.forward.com/articles/7024

[Oversea Visitor]

1. She is betting that

the election is a success in Iraq.
Think she never realise that 72% of Americans dont like this war now.

[acmejack]

3. Oh, she knows we don't support the war

She simply doesn't care. It is the American way, both Parties ignore the will of the People. Neat, huh?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Consider the alternative.

Look at the amount of flak that gets thrown at "cowardly" senators who change their positions to win votes.

I might wish Senator Clinton had chosen a better issue to stand firm on, but holding a position even when it has become unpopular is not in itself a flaw.

To criticise her for supporting the war, it's necessary to make a specific criticism (that individual position is wrong for these reasons), not just a general one (it would be defeated in a referendum, therefore no-one should support it).

Otherwise, just the same argument could have been applied to those politicians who opposed the war back when it had more than 50% support.

[tirechewer]

6. Hilary Clinton is wrong to support the war...

The war was wrong to begin with. US soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying in droves every day for no particular reason, other than George W. Bush's desire to have the war and to have it continue.

Clinton is a child of Viet Nam. She remembers it well, I'm sure. Though there are many differences in the two situations, there are enough similarities that it should have rung alarm bells for everyone who initially supported it.

Why does she support it so vehemently? Is it because she truly believes it is the right course of action or is it because she thinks it is the best way to make political hay and advance herself.

Being a world class cynic about politics and politicians, I think it is the latter. I hate to see people die for nothing. I always have and I always will. I wish more of our "leaders" felt the same way.

I personally feel that someone who has the courage to step forward and say, "I was fooled. I made a decision based on lies and manipulation, and now I want to let everyone know that if I was fooled, so were they." is a much better person than someone who goes on supporting an immoral war simply because the country is already involved in it. How many people have to die before she thinks that it has all evened out and she has nothing to prove anymore?

[tavalon]

2. If she gets the nomination

I'm going to assume our system is broken beyond repair. That would be the stupidest ass thing the Dems could ever do.

[billbuckhead]

5. She's looking down the road to actually governing 3years down the road

A dovish Dem won't be elected let alone be in a position to govern. In a couple years, the whole situation could be different like a war with Iran or worse.

[sendero]

7. Since the majority...

.. of Americans, a substantial majority at that - think that the Iraq war was a mistake, think that it should have never happened, and think we should get out ASAP - I hardly find her position to be that politically savvy.

The idea is to run out a little ahead of public sentiment, not behind it. That's called LEADING, and Hillary is no leader and that is why Dems aze having such a hard time getting traction - THERE ARE SO FEW LEADERS.

I agree with a previous poster. If Hillary gets the nomination, that will be like the itchy rash that is not going away - we can no longer deny that we have a problem - better get the Dem party to a good doctor. :)

[election_2004]

8. If she's prez in '09 and there's a war with Iran/North Korea/etc.....

Where is President Hillary going to get the extra troops to fight any of those wars?