August 22, 2007

CLINTON: This Tactic Did Not Work

The netroots are not happy with Hillary Clinton's admission that changing "tactics" in Iraq is "working." Despite Team HRC claims that the word "surge" never appeared in her 8/21 Veterans of Foreign Wars remarks, most are interpreting her statement as an endorsement of the surge. Reactions include:

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Hillary Clinton is upfront that she thinks Petraeus has made progress in Iraq with new military tactics, she's also upfront that she thinks that the surge can't work. She also wants to leave troops in Iraq to continue the military progress Petraeus is making. That's why I don't trust her on Iraq."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I think this statement from Clinton is a very big deal, and does show her to have a more hawkish "core" than Obama, Edwards or Richardson. ... My main concern here is not whether this specific troop escalation had or has not worked (it hasn't, and both Obama and Clinton are wrong on that front, as the numbers objectively show) ... Rather, it is whether a sizable, long-term military presence in Iraq that arrived via pre-emptive invasion could ever have "worked," no matter what strategies were employed from the start."
• Daily Kos' Down with Conservatism: "While she does say the best thing we can do is bring the troops home, even by acknowledging some sort of success because of the surge just shows Hillary's lack of credibility on the war. If you believe we should not be in Iraq, it doesn't matter if the surge is working or not. ... Democrats who hate the war should think twice before supporting Hillary."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "At the very least, it was an acknowledgment of nominal support for one aspect of the president's escalation policy ... My larger issue with Clinton is when she chooses to reinforce right-wing talking points ... Talk about Bush/Cheney light."
• Mike Gravel at The Huffington Post: "In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine ... Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right.
• The Huffington Post's Frank Dwyer: "What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start? ... I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated ... I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it."

CLINTON II: The Real Map Redrawer?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas posts SurveyUSA numbers showing Hillary Clinton barely behind Rudy Giuliani in AL and ahead in KY and VA. MyDD's Jonathan Singer links and blogs: "At this point it doesn't look like Kentucky (which last went for a Democrat in 1996) and Virginia (which last went for a Democrat in 1964) are simply in play for the Democrats -- if this polling means anything, Clinton may actually be a slight favor in these two states. Even the polling out of Alabama, which voted the most Republican of the three states in 2004, seems to indicate that Clinton could at least force the GOP nominee to spend money, even if she isn't able to win there."

CLINTON III: It All Depends On Who You're Uniting And Who You're Dividing

Looking at new Zogby numbers from IA, MyDD's Todd Beeton questions Zogby's affiliation with Newsmax but concludes: " the fact that Pollster has added it to its list of Iowa polls, lends it credibility." The numbers show HRC at 30% followed by John Edwards at 23% and Barack Obama at 19%. Beeton notes that these are some of the first results to come after both HRC and Obama have been on the air and comments:

I personally think Obama's ad is quite moving and is an excellent intro ad for him ... But what it also does is call for unity while Clinton's ad picks a fight with Bush, which is an essential difference in the styles of the two campaigns. If Obama doesn't win the nomination I think it will be due in part to something I've been sensing about the Democratic electorate. No matter how many people might say they are sick of partisan bickering ... the last thing Democrats want is to unite with Republicans.

DODD: Gonzo's Got To Go

Netroots all-star provocateurMike Stark blogs at The Huffington Post: "At YearlyKos, after the candidate's forum, I attended the Chris Dodd breakout session and asked a question about impeachment. I left unimpressed with the answer. As you can see, there wasn't any room for wiggle; Dodd was opposed to the impeachment of Alberto Gonzalez." Stark then notes that Dodd recently told the Des Moines Register he leaned toward supporting impeachment. Stark comments: "If you want to see impeachment of Gonzales move forward -- a process that will almost certainly reveal high crimes and misdemeanors in the Office of the Vice President and Office of the President -- I suggest you start telling Dodd to lead on the issue."

Posted by Conn Carroll at August 22, 2007 12:40 PM